Multiple people shot at church in Sutherland Springs

Can you clarify? I assumed the fifth question was referring to private party sellers, as opposed to licensed gun stores.

 

I honestly don’t follow your logic at all. More legal barriers mean less chance of someone falling through the cracks, not the same chance.

 

Out of curiosity why do you blame Reid and not the 46 Republicans who voted against it? Reid made 60 the threshold to stop the gun lobby from loading tons of amendments that would have effectively neutered the bill.

 

There are no manner of legal barriers that would have helped when the mistake was made by the Air Force meaning that the disqualifying information would never show up on a background check. I'm not sure how you don't follow that. Make it 18 times illegal for him to buy or own firearms given his background and it won't matter if that information never shows up on background checks due to the Air Force screwing up.

If the Air Force does their job properly, he's turned down every time he tries to purchase a firearm. Now of course that doesn't mean there's no way he could have managed to get one because if we've learned anything from every time the US has tried prohibition it's that there's nothing that can stop people from getting things they want if they really want them, but it would have made it to where he couldn't have bought the weapons in the manner he did.

Still, it's a good thing that the guy who lived across from the church managed to buy his AR-15 legally or the mass shooting is likely much worse.

 

The background check should not depend solely on the Air Force entering in that he was dishonorably discharged.

Was the domestic violence incident not part of his criminal record? If so, why wasn’t that flagged on the background check, independently of any action the Air Force may or may not have taken? Wouldn’t redundancies be a good idea here and reduce chance of human error leading to someone like this getting a gun?

Edit:

More info on the Air Force error here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-...patrick-kelley-discharged-from-the-air-force/

 

No.

 

The shooter being shot down by someone with a legally owned firearm is the NRA's wet dream come true, some of the statements you see now are pathetic.

Saw some interviews with people in that town, many to the tune of "See, we were always right. We need even more guns to prevent these shootings!".

It's sad to see how indoctrinated many US citizens are, there will never be change if this keeps going on.

 

It's so stupid.

 

No f'ing tolerance for gun manufacturers and gun nuts.
It is like having tolerance for crack dealers.
Time for the gun industry/pushers to be shutdown and go produce something minimally socially productive and less destructive to society.
Time to make them pay the true costs of their industry.

 

At some point I will purchase a gun and take a class. Too many nuts out here.

 

Expand on this. It's the law abiding citizens who are affected by gun laws not the criminals. This douch would had done even more damage with a shotgun and 00 buckshot. Enforce the laws we have, which is hard to do when the leftist media and society has the law afraid to do their job.

 

The whole country of Australia would beg to differ.

 

Apples, oranges. When children(and adults)are taught that cops and the president are bad and Snoop Dogg is good then this country has a ****ing problem!

 

Yes, I forgot. USA is exceptional, while Australia is not.

 

There is little evidence Australia or Britain's gun laws did much

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/

 

Im not trying to be an ass when I say this, but questionnaires should not be left up to assumption. Its frustrating to read a poll that cherry picks its words to get the results it wants. The first question can be interpreted many different ways depending on the person.

 

Trump says the shooting was a mental illness problem and not a gun problem. Could it be that the people who pushed for and got Trump to sign a bill like that are the ones not thinking straight? Insane decisions or greed? Politicians whose pockets have always been filled with bribes might now just be getting a whole lot more bit coins being deposited into their multiple bank accounts to keep the flow of guns a coming.

 

What are two ways the first question can be interpreted that would yield very different answers?

 

I don't think that's true really because of limitations when it comes to how many shells a shotgun would hold. He'd spend WAY too much time reloading unless were were talking about some type of drum magazine style shotgun.

That said, if he knew what he was doing, he could get the same results with a handgun that had a decent capacity and several magazines which are light and easy to carry. The guy was essentially in a shooting gallery of unarmed civilians many of whom were elderly or children.

It sounds like there was some sort of clerical error and his discharge wasn't filed properly flagging it as a violence related discharge. As such, it wouldn't show up in the background check. I'm not sure the exact way you fix problems like that from happening, but I'm pretty sure the solution would be procedural changes and maybe some way to audit records to ensure accuracy.

I also think that they should increase prosecutions for people falsely filling out paperwork to purchase firearms. I mean, we have the laws to do it now, they just don't enforce it enough.

 

The question is "Background checks for all gun buyers". You interpret the question as "Background checks for all gun buyers purchasing through a dealer", but that is not what it says.

I don't think I should have to do a background check if I buy a gun from my brother, so I could easily disagree with that question.